On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 03:10:44PM +0200, Anita Graser wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Sandro Santilli <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:30:35AM +0200, Jürgen E. Fischer wrote: > >> On Mon, 30. Sep 2013 at 08:53:06 +0200, Sandro Santilli wrote: > >> > Also, insisting in the production of binary makes the release process > >> > more > >> > complex than it could be. Binary packaging and source releases should be > >> > separate processes, IMHO. > >> > >> Any only else share the opinion that we should stop making packages and > >> trust > >> that others will pick up? > > -1. I don't think that's a good idea. We've now seen that packaging is > not trivial enough to be done by just anyone. It needs dedicated > people and experience to produce working packages. > > > I'm not suggesting anyone to _stop_ doing something, only to allow > > for releases to exist before they are binary packaged by anyone. > > I think this would cause a lot of confusions ... even more versions > floating around. Which group of users would profit from this solution?
Those who build qgis from source (includes packagers). I shall notice that this group includes _all_ developers (current and potential). --strk; _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
